Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue for v2.6.36
From: Daniel Walker
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 14:03:23 EST
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 19:53 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > I haven't seen anything that shows your adding back the same
> > expressiveness that your removing .. So I still don't think this should
> > be merged.
> Do you mean by expressiveness the ability to hack around a suboptimally
> working driver in userland (by requiring the administrator to play with
> kernel thread priorities of dedicated worker threads)? Is it known
> whether this driver/ these drivers still require this hack after Tejun's
> patch set is applied? If yes, how about finding someone to fix this
> driver for good. Meanwhile, let's gets rid of the problem of having
> both too few and too many workers in countless present usages of the
> workqueue API please.
I mean by expressiveness the fact that a user can prioritize their
system more fully in the current system.
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/